5. A Biblical Theology of Israel

5.1 One God, One People

• "Four pillars" of deuteronomistic theology: henotheism, election, covenant, land
• We have already talked about the henotheism of Israel and its progression. Exodus 20 seems to be patterned on a suzerainty treaty.
• Deut. 32:8-9 speaks of God choosing Israel in the great nation matching (election). We've already talked about deuteronomistic theology and the blessings and curses of Deut. 28.
• Psalm 82 pictures YHWH as king of the gods.
• Israel initially was an amphictyony. Then it was a monarchy. Then the Law took a certain center stage and it was run by priests centered in the temple.
• Israel was not greatly eschatological but had more of a cyclical view of history. The apocalypticists of the late 200s/early 100s BC introduced the linear components that would become characteristic of Christianity.

5.2 A Biblical Theology of the Law

• The cultic parts of the Law were fulfilled in Christ.
• The civil parts of the Law were heavily ensconced in the Ancient Near East.
• "Christ's law" is the law of love, which includes most but not all of the Ten Commandments.
• Sexual ethics seem to occupy an ambiguous zone in relation to Paul's broader view of the Law but are retained as part of NT ethics.
• The early church debated what we might call "Jew-specific laws," laws that especially pertained to the ethnic boundary between Jews and Gentiles (circumcision, food laws, most purity laws, Sabbath observance). Paul considers these not binding on Gentile believers although other early Christian leaders seem to have disagreed.

5.3 Parting of the Ways?

• Neither Paul nor any of the original disciples of Jesus saw faith in Jesus as a parting with the faith of Israel or its Scriptures. That is, the New Testament is not supercessionist.
• None of the biblical authors ceased believing in one God. The way that Jesus related to the one God is debated. Those who hold to an early high Christology see Jesus as included in some way within the one God. Others see this inclusion taking place later in a Gentile context.
• The election of Israel seems to be a central feature of much of the New Testament even though the gospel is universalized. Matthew sees the mission to the world emerging from Israel. Luke-Acts see us in a middle time, "times of the Gentiles," but with Jerusalem and its temple as the center of the mission. Paul says that Israel's election is "without repentance" (Rom. 11:29).
• Three positions on Romans 11: a) replacement theory, b) the true ethnic Israel reading, and c) the final return reading. Perhaps the third one fits Romans 11:26 best. But we are left with 1) the fact that current Israel is not believing Israel--it is not yet the Israel of promise and 2) we must remain somewhat agnostic about God's current plan with regard to the events of the last century. We will know when it is all finished.
• The Gospel of John seems to come the closest to the boundaries of Judaism: 1) it most equates Jesus with God the Father; 2) it most most distances Jesus from Judaism ("your law"); 3) it most has the feel of Christianity as a wholesale replacement for the Jewish festivals in addition to the temple; 4) it distances the worship of God from Jerusalem and makes it a matter of the Spirit.

Previous "chapters"
Chapter 1: What is Biblical Theology?
Chapter 2: Theology of God
Chapter 3: Creation and Consummation

4.1-3 Sin and the Fall
4.4 Sin in the Old Testament
4.5 Sin in the New Testament
4.6 Atonement in the Old Testament
4.7 Atonement in the New Testament

9. Concentrated Romans (9:1-11:36)

See the bottom for the whole series.

II.3 What about Israel?
Romans 9-11
A. Paul's love for his people (9:1-5)

• This is the third and final section of the first half of Romans. The first section addressed the question of "Who will be justified before God and how?" (1:18-5:11). The second addressed the follow-up question of "What about sin and the law, then?" (5:12-8:39). Now we get the big picture question, "What about Israel?"
• When Protestant interpreters read Romans 1-8 in universal, individual terms, Romans 9-11 seemed out of place. But in truth, the question of the inclusion of the Gentiles into the people of God has been the underlying question of Romans from the very beginning. Paul declares in the first section that not only Gentiles but Jews themselves come into right status with God by faith. The question of sin and the Law is a question of the Jewish Law and its purpose if Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith.
• So now we arrive at the elephant in the room. Has God just abandoned his special relationship with Israel then? If Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, why is it that more Gentiles than Jews have believed? What's going on?!
• 9:1-5. Paul makes it clear in these verses that he cares about his own people. No doubt some had accused him of hating his own people. By contrast, he says he would willingly become accursed if it would save his own people. Their lack of faith in Christ is a matter of great sorrow and anguish for him.
• He speaks of the great honors that are Israel's. God first chose them to be his "son" among the nations of the world. Now the rest of the world is becoming his sons and daughters. They were given great honor in the Old Testament (cf. Rom. 3:1-2).
• Israel was given the Law, which shows us God's righteous expectation, especially to love our neighbor. Theirs were the covenants--with Abraham, with Moses. Theirs were the fathers.
• Theirs was the temple. Paul gives not a hint that the temple is obsolete in its functions, nor does he foresee the temple's destruction in any of his writings.
• To Israel belonged the Messiah, Jesus. There is a grammatical question in 9:5. The original manuscripts did not have punctuation. In fact they were written in continuous letters without many spaces. Does Paul mean to say, "the Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed forever" or "the Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all be blessed forever"?
• The theology of the first is of course what we believe as Christians, but it is not a statement Paul makes anywhere in his writings other than Titus 2:13. It does not deny the theology of the first to conclude that it would be more typical of Paul to say the second.

B. God can do what he wants (9:6-29)

• These verses are the central passage on predestination in the Bible. Several things should be kept in mind as we read them. First, Paul still has the Jew-Gentile question in view. That is to say, he is not really talking about individual predestination but God's plan with regard to Israel and the Gentiles. Paul's fundamental point is that if God wants to harden Israel for a season to save the Gentiles, he can do whatever he wants for he is God.
• A second thing to remember is that the hardened of Romans 9 can still be saved in Romans 11. Paul does not see predestination as something that is unalterable.
• Paul does not harmonize his language of predestination with his language of free choice. This fits with some cultural dimensions from his day. In the Oedipus cycle, Oedipus has a fate that works its way out, but he acts freely throughout the story. Paul does not explain how these two conflicting notions fit together. That is why we have Calvinists, Arminians, Molinists, and others today.
• Central to Paul is that God is not to blame. God's word to Israel has not failed. Why? Because this is part of God's sovereign plan. This is also the key biblical passage for God's sovereignty, his absolute authority over his creation.
• 9:6. "Not all Israel is Israel." Here is an important theological point for all time. Those who visibly seem to be part of the people of God are never exactly the people of God. Even in ancient Israel, not all Israel was Israel. In the church, not everyone in the church is truly in the church. But see 11:26
• The passage certainly sounds like double predestination, but we have to keep in mind the rest of the New Testament as well, which does not sound that way. Among all of the New Testament, this is the unusual passage. Paul makes his point well enough. God can do whatever God wants to do because he is God.
• "The clay would not say to the potter, would it, 'Why have you made me thus?'" (9:20). Again, Paul makes the point clearly enough. God can do whatever God wants to do because he is God. We know of course from elsewhere (e.g., 1 Tim. 2:4) that God wants everyone to be saved. That is what he ultimately wants to do.
• 9:23-29. God's will is to save the Gentiles. That is what this passage is really about. Paul uses a string of verses from the Old Testament to substantiate his point.

C. Justification by Faith (9:30-10:21)

• 9:30-33. We revisit some of the material from the first part of Romans but now with the underlying issue fully in view. The Jews have not been seeking justification in the right way, but many Gentiles now have.
• Gentiles have attained righteousness, justification, by faith. But Israel, pursuing justification by the Jewish Law, "works of Law," have not. They have tripped over Jesus, God's fore-ordained path to justification.
• Again, Paul reiterates that his hope for Israel is salvation. They have a zeal (like he once did), but it is a zeal without knowledge. They do not recognize their own Messiah.
• Christ is the goal, the telos, the "end" of the Law. Christ is the one to whom the Law pointed (cf. Gal. 4:1-2).
• 10:5-13. Justification, a right standing with God, is not a matter of great effort, of "works of Law." You do not need to climb to heaven or descend to the underworld to get it. The word of faith which puts you in right standing with God is in your mouth.
• "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved" (10:9). That is, you will escape the wrath of God on the day of judgment. "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (10:13), whether you are a Jew or a Gentile.
• The Lordship of Jesus, here as elsewhere, is intrinsically connected to Jesus' resurrection. It is when Jesus sits at God's right hand that he is "enthroned" as Messiah, Lord, and Son of God.
• As simple as it is to do so, it is not simply putting down true on a quiz. It is a life commitment. It will lead to a life of works, and we will each give an account for the deeds done in the body (2 Cor. 5:10). We are committing our allegiance to Jesus as our king.
• 10:14-21. Paul now moves toward one of his purposes for writing Romans. He is hoping that the churches of Rome will support him on a mission to Spain. If the Gentiles can be saved, then missionaries are needed to go tell them. Paul is just such a missionary. How can they call on Christ if they have not had faith yet? How will they have faith if they do not hear? How will they hear unless someone goes?
• Paul is not dealing with a separate question. How does God deal with those who have never heard. We looked at this question briefly in relation to Romans 1:19-20.
• Israel, however, has not believed even though they have heard. Paul gives several Scriptures to support this claim.

D. Israel will be saved (11:1-32)

• 11:1-32. There is still hope for Israel. A key indication that predestination language in Romans 9 does not function in the way Augustine, Wycliffe, and Calvin thought it did is the fact that those whom God has hardened in Romans 9 can still be saved in Romans 11.
• 11:1-10. God has not rejected his people. Indeed, 11:29 will tell us soon that God's calling on Israel is irrevocable.
• 11:2-5. There is a remnant who believes, the true Israel within the ethnic people of Israel, as in the days of Elijah.
• 11:6-10. In the mystery of God's will, Israel is currently experiencing a "stupor" in relation to its own messiah.
• 11:11-24. But they have not stumbled beyond recovery. In this section Paul develops the branch metaphor. God has broken off many natural branches to the tree so that he can graft in the wild Gentile branches. Clearly, then, Paul still considers ethnic Israel in the Old Testament the trunk of the tree.
• But this is not a fixed situation. The natural branches (ethnic Israel) can be grafted back in. God would be delighted to do so. Similarly, if the grafted branches (Gentile believers) turn away, they can be cut back out again. 
• God is using the in-grafting of the Gentiles into the people of God to provoke the natural Israelite branches to jealousy.
• 11:25-32. Here are highly debated verses, but the train of thought is clear. Part of Israel is currently experiencing a hardening until the full number of the Gentiles come in. Then all Israel will be saved. Paul looks to the eventual faith of ethnic Israel. The Messiah will turn godlessness away from Jacob. That is, he will bring faith to unbelieving Israel.
• This of course did not happen in Paul's lifetime and has not happened since. In their enthusiasm for the re-establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 and their horror for the Holocaust, many Christians have forgotten that nothing has changed with unbelieving Israel from Paul's point of view. In fact, there are far more Palestinian believers in Palestine than there are Israeli believers today. 
• 11:32. All are in a state of disobedience, both Jew and Gentile, but God's plan is to have mercy on both.

E. Doxology (11:33-36)

• Paul ends the first half of Romans with a doxology of praise to God. Who can understand the plans of God? We cannot think his thoughts after him. He is sovereign and in control. He is the source of all things ("from whom"), the means of all things ("through whom"), and the purpose of all things ("for whom").
• Praise be to God!

_______________________
I. Introduction
1. Romans 1:1-15

II.1 Who is Justified?
II.1.1 Humanity's Problem
2. Romans 1:16-17
3. Romans 1:18-32
4. Romans 2:1-3:20

II.1.2 God's Solution
5. Romans 3:21-31
6. Romans 4:1-5:11

II.2 What about Sin?
7. Romans 5:12-6:23
8. Romans 7:1-8:39

Paul the Jew 2

Continued from yesterday...

... Nor is it likely that Paul viewed himself as a moral failure before he "discovered" justification by faith.  This was also one version of the older story.  Paul, plagued by his moral failures as revealed in Romans 7, finally realizes that he must depend entirely on Christ for his righteousness.  Now that he believes, he still cannot do the good he wants to do (7:19), but God now looks at Christ's righteousness rather than his.  Paul is both sinner and righteous, as long as he keeps repenting.

Again, this scenario is a fair description of Martin Luther's pilgrimage, but it is not Paul's. [1] In Philippians 3:6, Paul says that before he believed on Christ, he was faultless, "as for righteousness based on the law."  Indeed, Paul regularly tells his churches confidently to imitate his way of living (e.g., 1 Cor. 4:16-17; Phil. 4:9), and the word repentance rarely leaps from his subconscious in his writings--in fact never in relation to himself.  Paul was not a bad Pharisee.  He simply had an encounter with Christ that led him in another direction!

The vast majority of experts on Romans now agree that Paul never meant Romans 7 to depict a never-ending struggle for believers to do the right thing.  Indeed, we are reading this chapter exactly the opposite of how Paul meant it if we do not read it in the flow of Romans 6-8.  In these chapters, Paul contrasts what it is like to be a slave to sin with what it is like to have the Spirit within.  The end of the argument is Romans 8, where he talks about the Spirit setting a person free from the law of sin and death (8:2).

On the way there, Paul vividly dramatizes in Romans 7 the plight of the person, especially the Jew, who does not have the Spirit but wants to keep the essence of the Law, such as the command not to covet.  At the dramatic climax, he pictures this poor person crying out, "Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?" (7:24) The answer quickly follows, "through Jesus Christ our Lord!" (7:25).  Now by the power of the Spirit, we can fulfill the "just requirement of the law" (8:4, NRSV), which Paul later tells us is to love our neighbor (13:8-10).

Paul does say some things in his writings that paved the way for later Christians like Tertullian to consider Christians a "third race," neither Jew nor Gentile. [2]  In 1 Corinthians 9:20-21, Paul says that "to the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews... to those not having the law I became like one not having the law."  But this statement is really about keeping the Jewish Law--especially the parts like circumcision that distinguished Jew from Gentile--rather than about him abandoning his identity as an Israelite.  Romans 11 gives us the bigger picture.

For a time, the hearts of many Jews are hardened not to believe.  Certainly there remains a remnant of "true Israel" at present (e.g., Rom. 9:6), but most of ethnic Israel does not currently believe.  God is instead at this time grafting into the tree of Abraham the "full number of the Gentiles" (11:25).  Israel's lack of faith, in God's plan, has created an opportunity for the Gentiles to hear and believe the good news as well (e.g., 11:11).  But once that full number of the Gentiles comes in, then Israel itself will believe too: "all Israel will be saved" (11:26).  The "part" that is hardened (11:25) will become the "all" that believes (11:26).

For Paul, Israel thus remained the people of God.  Jews who believed remained part of true Israel.  Gentiles who believed could become a part of true Israel as well.

[1] We have Krister Stendahl, more than any other expert on Paul, to thank for these observations.  See "Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West," now in Paul Among Jews and Gentiles (***).  I dedicated the second volume of this series to him and N. T. Wright.

[2] To the Gentiles 1.8.

Romans 11

Final installment in the Romans make-up. Same old, same old--100 word comment response then at least 2 further comments on the comments of others, done by Tuesday night midnight. Outsiders also welcome to participate.

The three posts are:

Romans 9
Romans 10

and this one:
_________
11:1 Therefore, I say, has God abandoned His people? God forbid! For I also am an Israelite, from the seed of Abraham, [from] the tribe of Benjamin. God has not abandoned His people whom He foreknew...
The mention of foreknowledge hearkens back to the predestination discussion of chapters 8 and 9. Not all from Israel are Israel (9:6). The verses that follow draw on the image of a remnant in the middle of a broader Israel not following Him. This remnant exists "according to the election of grace" (11:5).

The verses from here through 11:10 are similar to Romans 9, hard verses. Election has gone into effect and the rest were hardened, even though Israel was seeking (11:7). The individual implications of election in this passage are logically hard to escape, even if they are not the focus of Paul's comment, for he is distinguishing between those in Israel who are the elect remnant and those in Israel whom God has hardened.

Like I said in a previous post, however, Paul's theology of predeterminism here does not connect to his ethics or missiology. The language functions as after the fact language--we know these are elect and these aren't because, look, these believe and these don't. Further, predeterminism is perhaps a better word than predestination, for Paul goes on to see hope for the future salvation of the hardened. Indeed, they seem predestined if anything for eventual salvation.

11:11-12 Therefore, I say, have they stumbled so that they fall? God forbid! But by their transgression, salvation [has come] to the Gentiles so that they become jealous. And if their transgression is wealth for the world and their loss is wealth for the Gentiles, how much more will their fullness [be]!
The logic here is so strange that it makes us wonder if there is some cultural element to the progress of Paul's thought or if the words just don't quite mean what they seem to be saying. The superficial sense seems to be that God has hardened Israel for the Gentiles to come in. Then Israel will become jealous and will accept Jesus as Messiah. This is scarcely predestination in the Calvinist sense. It does seem to be after-the-fact predeterminism. Whatever happens is God's will and this has happened.

11:13-14 And I speak to you Gentiles. Since I myself am apostle of the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry if somehow I might make my flesh jealous and might save some of them.
This verse makes that point quite clear. If it is all a matter of God's election, then why does Paul seem to put such a high urgency on his efforts and on the possibility that some might become jealous as a result of his ministry? He does not operate as if it is all a matter of God's choosing without any human choice involved.

Of course then we remember the Oedipus cycle from Greek mythology. Perhaps it helps us catch a better glimpse of fate in the ancient world. All the key players of this story fight their fate in the story. King Laius and Oedipus both fight their fate, Laius to be killed by his son and Oedipus to kill his father and marry his mother. Yet precisely in their attempt to avoid their fates, they both find themselves fulfilling it.

So ancient fate did allow for significant wiggle room on the way to its fulfillment. Even the Stoics believed one could resist one's fate, although it was pointless. Whether or not this background is of relevance for understanding Paul's language of predestination, I am not sure.

By the way, I see Romans predominantly written to Gentiles, especially since I am currently inclined to see Romans 16 as a letter recommendation meant for Ephesus. I strongly suspect that the current majority position, which sees Romans written to a mixed Jewish and Gentile audience, draws the Jewish part primarily from the data of Romans 16. The earlier chapters do not, in my opinion, point in that direction (Rom. 2:17 does not address the audience but Paul's imaginary interlocutor).

11:17-24
These verses emphasize my points above that Paul's predeterminism language simply does not function in a Calvinistic way. So 11:20 tells the audience not to boast because they are in--they should rather be afraid, lest God remove them, thus in consequence of their action. Similarly, in 11:23 Paul says that if Israel does not persist in its unbelief, "God is able to graft them in again." This is not predestination. This is God responding to human action.

11:25 For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, of this mystery, so that you are not arrogant in yourselves. A hardness has come from part of Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in and, therefore, all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

"The rescuer will come out of Zion. He will turn ungodliness from Israel. And this [is the] covenant from me when I take away their sins."

According to the gospel, [they are] enemies because of you, but according to election, [they are] beloved because of the fathers, for the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance... God has imprisoned all people for disobedience that He might have mercy on all.
So Paul seems to say that all Israel will accept Jesus as Messiah around the time that the Messiah returns. God's calling of Israel as His people is not something He can abandon.

These words sound a great deal like universalism, that everyone will be saved in the end. But this idea hardly seems to fit with the bulk of Paul's writing and mission. We should thus be careful about basing any of our theology on 11:32. To do so inevitably results in taking a very unclear verse and using it to skew countless clear ones.

11:33-36
This is a lovely doxology to end the first half of Romans. Interestingly, Paul uses Isaiah 40 here to speak of the unknowability of God, while in 1 Cor. 2:16 he used it to speak of how Christians know the mind of God. It highlights the situational nature of Paul's argumentation.

If we were to ask which use more centrally represents Paul's thought, we should probably pick Romans 11's use. In 1 Cor. 2, Paul is dealing with people who think they are hot stuff in the knowledge department. Paul points out that truly spiritual people (which did not include them) do have the mind of Christ.

"And so all Israel will be saved": Alongside Rom. 11:26

Today I started teaching a summer New Testament survey. Sometimes I'm afraid I'm becoming a tape recorder. All you have to do is press the button, "OK Schenck, first day of class." Then I cue "the story behind the story."

But actually that's not true. Almost no matter how much structure I have planned (quiz, group activity, preplanned "this will be on the quiz" comments), some tangent inevitably presents itself... unless I have Bell's Palsy at the time. Those must have been about the best classes with me ever. No tangents, out early after I had covered the essentials.

Any number of semi-controversial to controversial tangents today, including one point where I sat down because "the opinions of Schenck do not necessarily represent those of Indiana Wesleyan University." The topic was whether or not the election of Israel was still in place and, in particular, what Paul might have meant by Romans 11:26: "and so all Israel will be saved."

There are several interpretations, three of which are found in Bud Bence's Romans commentary. Off the top of my head, I think the three he mentions are 1) that Israel here means true Israel, namely, Jews and Gentiles who accept Christ, 2) ethnic Israel, meaning that eventually disbelievers in Israel will accept Christ, and 3) ethnic Jewish believers.

As a slight tangent, I would not assume that biblical authors like Paul always meant "all" literally--I'm not trying to get out of anything or insinuating dishonesty, the meaning of words and phrases is in their use, and many, many "all" statements that people make are not really meant to withstand the insane questioning of some hypothetical philosophy teacher.

Ok, here's a typical unexpected tangent. I get frustrated when language is assumed to function only on a literal and declarative level. I've heard sermons where the preacher condemns the insincerity of someone who says, "How are you?" and then walks on before waiting to hear the answer. Some expressions are "performative" not declarative. And this statement often is simply meant to play a "cohesive," social function rather than a cognitive one. It can be a bit like shaking hands with words. Perhaps the most enlightening book I've read on this subject is G. B. Caird's The Language and Imagery of the Bible.

Anyway, I think Paul must be referring significantly in context to those in ethnic Israel who have not accepted Christ. The reason is that the verse right before is talking about how "a hardening has come on part of Israel until the full number of the Gentiles come in." In other words, he is talking about the part of Israel that has not "received our report." Because of election, they will be saved (11:28), because God's call is irrevocable (11:29). I see no other possible interpretation in context: Paul is prophesying that all (generally speaking--at least the part that was currently hardened) Israel will eventually stop being hardened in their heart toward Christ. He did not mean "true Israel" by Israel in this verse. After all, he would then be saying almost nothing: "all the saved will be saved."

So we have some sense of the original meaning. Now we sit alongside the text with our theology, experience, the Spirit, the church, our knowledge of history and current events. What will we do with this text?

On the one hand, Paul was not thinking about Israel 2000 years later. The Israel he had in mind stood right before him. Surely the Romans must have wondered if Paul was a false prophet after Jerusalem was destroyed (this surely applies to 2 Thessalonians as well)!

Was the Spirit really speaking about modern Israel through Paul, even though Paul didn't know it? On the one hand, it hasn't happened yet. Modern Israel has not yet accepted Christ. The last statistic I heard was that 85% of those in modern Israel aren't even practicing Jews, let alone Christians. It's actually illegal to try to proselytize. That's the ironic thing--as far as I can tell there are more Palestinian Christians than Israeli Christians. At least until the post-Iraq period (I hope it's still true), places like Bethlehem and Nazareth were both primarily Palestinian and Christian.

Nazareth is Palestinian but in Israel. Bethlehem is in the West Bank. Both have historically been more Christian than Muslim. My impression is that the Iraq war has facilitated changes toward Islam in these places.

So here's where I sit down. It seems to me that a nation like Israel does not get a "pass" of any kind just because they are Israel. I'm not presuming here that Israel is unrighteous. I'm not debating here their assasinations or retaliatory strikes or the wall. Has there been unrighteous violence toward Palestinians? I've already noted that there will always be--even when a violent act is "justified" for a greater good, violence begets violence and evil acts will take place by all sides in consequence.

On the other hand, my impression is that most Israelis would gladly give the Palestinians a state, including eastern Jerusalem as the capital, if they'd just stop blowing things up. But the US should expect the same standard of behavior from Israel as anyone else--just as the world should expect it of us. God certainly didn't let them off the hook because "this is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord" (Jer. 7:4). And God won't let us off either.

By the way, anyone else amused that some of the same people who saw 9-11 as God's judgment on America's sin are also some of those who staunchly argue that America is a Christian nation?

Anyway, it just seems deeply ironic that so many conservative American Christians funnel money to the Zionist cause. When I was in Israel, the orthodox Jews at the wailing wall could spot Americans like me a mile off and came a running for donations to the cause. I bet these individuals say something like "Sucker" to themselves after Americans cough up the dough for them. They probably think Christianity laughable--they certainly don't believe Jesus was the Messiah. And here these stupid American Christians are giving them money! What fools!

Meanwhile, there is a Baptist Bible college run by Palestinians in Bethlehem. Perhaps we shouldn't be sending finances to anyone. But it seems to me that if we sent them to anyone, we should send them to the Christians of the Holy Land, whether Israeli or Palestinian. But why would we send them to the fundamentalist Jews?

I do not know God's plans for ethnic Israel. I pray for its peace. I honor Jews as the people of God to whom God gave the oracles (Rom. 3:2). But politically, they are no more our friend than any ally, and we should expect of them and ourselves the same standards of action as any other nation. God may have political plans for them as a Christian nation. But it hasn't happened yet. For all we know, they might be destroyed and not become Christian for a 1000 years!

P.S. I didn't say all this this morning.